B+ve
04-10 05:56 PM
Hi There,
My 485 application is pending at TSC on EB3 category, country of chargebility is Inida. Yesterday my PERM labor approved on EB2 category and need to apply 140 to recapture my own EB3 PD.
My employer will come under NSC. if the PD recaptured, I will be hardly one month away from my priority date to be current, as per the current visa bulletin dates.
1) So can you please provide some suggestion to which Service Center will be opt for filing EB2 140 now, in order for getting an optimal or faster process for 140 and eventually 485?
2) Does the service center really matters as it will take a very long time for me to get greened?
3) Is it worth waiting for couple of month's visa bulletin, to see whether the EB2 I dates are moving so that I can use some streamline process to process 140 and 485 together?
Thanks,
B+ve.
My 485 application is pending at TSC on EB3 category, country of chargebility is Inida. Yesterday my PERM labor approved on EB2 category and need to apply 140 to recapture my own EB3 PD.
My employer will come under NSC. if the PD recaptured, I will be hardly one month away from my priority date to be current, as per the current visa bulletin dates.
1) So can you please provide some suggestion to which Service Center will be opt for filing EB2 140 now, in order for getting an optimal or faster process for 140 and eventually 485?
2) Does the service center really matters as it will take a very long time for me to get greened?
3) Is it worth waiting for couple of month's visa bulletin, to see whether the EB2 I dates are moving so that I can use some streamline process to process 140 and 485 together?
Thanks,
B+ve.
wallpaper Keira Knightley Short
krishna_brc
06-25 01:30 PM
~~~please advise~~~
Blog Feeds
05-05 06:50 AM
Perry Bacon, Jr. writes in today's Washington Post that the President seems to be more interested in blaming the Republicans for his inability to deliver on immigration rather than actually making a serious effort to fix the problems. To President Obama - you've shown you're a serious bad @$S with your historic capture of the world's most wanted man. No one seriously believes you're helpless if you really consider something a priority.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/i-can-kill-bin-ladin-but-im-helpless-on-immigration.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/i-can-kill-bin-ladin-but-im-helpless-on-immigration.html)
2011 Keira Knightley Rest
Macaca
10-14 09:54 AM
Nativism In the House: A Report on the House Immigration Reform Caucus (http://www.buildingdemocracy.org/Nativism_In_the_House/A_Report_on_the_HIRC/Nativism_In_the_House%3A_A_Report_on_the_House_Imm igration_Reform_Caucus_200710091083/), 09 October 2007
New Report Analyzes the Immigration Reform Caucus' Role in Derailing True Immigration Reform (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marisa-trevi/new-report-analyzes-the-i_b_68035.html) By Marisa Trevi�o, October 11, 2007
New Report Analyzes the Immigration Reform Caucus' Role in Derailing True Immigration Reform (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marisa-trevi/new-report-analyzes-the-i_b_68035.html) By Marisa Trevi�o, October 11, 2007
more...
Macaca
11-14 09:30 PM
Congress Needs Both Comity and Accomplishments (http://aei.org/publications/pubID.27104,filter.all/pub_detail.asp) By Norman J. Ornstein | Roll Call, November 14, 2007
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
cooldesi
04-02 07:50 PM
I dont think they'll have issues. It takes some time to gice notice and wrap up work
more...
mrdelhiite
08-09 02:37 PM
I have a quick question. Should I go ahead and apply for my wife's I131 – Advanced payroll too with her 485/EAD. The way I understand 485/EAD/AP is as soon as she gets her EAD, she would want to work and in that case it would be recommended to have a AP too. People suggest that AP should/can be applied later on but I do not see any benefit in saving 6 months/170$.
Also let me add that my wife will be in US from August 10th to August 26th and then November 10th. As you have to be in country till AP approval should i defer applying her AP now. She is currently on H4.
Please suggest.
Thank you for your time
-M :confused:
Also let me add that my wife will be in US from August 10th to August 26th and then November 10th. As you have to be in country till AP approval should i defer applying her AP now. She is currently on H4.
Please suggest.
Thank you for your time
-M :confused:
2010 Keira Knightley
aish_m04
09-19 12:49 PM
Hi all,
I am resident of CA and have my I140 application approved from Nebraska. My I485 application was filed in TSC. Is this a issue since according to USCIS, CA residents should file in the NSC. Will my I485 will be rejected because of this issue.
Thanks
I am resident of CA and have my I140 application approved from Nebraska. My I485 application was filed in TSC. Is this a issue since according to USCIS, CA residents should file in the NSC. Will my I485 will be rejected because of this issue.
Thanks
more...
sourav_bhaduri
08-19 08:38 AM
Hi Experts,
My L1 Individual petition was rejected, the reason was "Individual doesn't have enough specialized knowledge". My question is can I make fresh petition for L1 blanket approval after 6-7 months?
My L1 Individual petition was rejected, the reason was "Individual doesn't have enough specialized knowledge". My question is can I make fresh petition for L1 blanket approval after 6-7 months?
hair Keira Knightley Keira
superman_80
03-18 12:17 PM
I have valid SSN and B1 visa. My employer wants to me travel to US after getting confirmation on my project from US. My employer is willing to do a change of status while I will be in US.
1. Is it feasible or any process which US Immigration supports? Could anyone pls help me with any USICS link which details about the same i.e 'Change of Status'
2. Is there any risks involved in it provided the change of status is a legal process?
Pls Help.....
1. Is it feasible or any process which US Immigration supports? Could anyone pls help me with any USICS link which details about the same i.e 'Change of Status'
2. Is there any risks involved in it provided the change of status is a legal process?
Pls Help.....
more...
mishoni
08-10 07:24 AM
Let's see how I put the stamps here...
hot Keira Knightley poses for the
auvrm
05-28 12:57 AM
Hi,
I'm in H1b since March 2006 and it Expired in March 2009. Got extension Until Sept 2009 Only (as per RFE and client information).
( I'm about to deliver a baby in Oct 2009, so I need to be in the country atleast until Dec 2009)
1) If my further extension were to be denied (touch wood), say that decision was made by USCIS in Nov 2009,
Can I do COS ( change of status) to F2 or B2 visitor once I came to know about the denial?
or
Do I need to initiate a COS when the case is pending?
or
Do I need to initiate a COS when I have a valid status, say in Aug 2009 itself?
2) Assuming, I do COS successfully from H1b to F1 ( say in Oct 2009)
Then, in Feb 2010 would I be able to get back to H1 again with the same or different employer? without needing to wait for Apr 2010 quota to open?
3) Also, when a H1b is denied does it mean that the person has to wait to get into another cap? or
can they still apply for H1b year round as they are already counted in Cap sometime before?
I'm in H1b since March 2006 and it Expired in March 2009. Got extension Until Sept 2009 Only (as per RFE and client information).
( I'm about to deliver a baby in Oct 2009, so I need to be in the country atleast until Dec 2009)
1) If my further extension were to be denied (touch wood), say that decision was made by USCIS in Nov 2009,
Can I do COS ( change of status) to F2 or B2 visitor once I came to know about the denial?
or
Do I need to initiate a COS when the case is pending?
or
Do I need to initiate a COS when I have a valid status, say in Aug 2009 itself?
2) Assuming, I do COS successfully from H1b to F1 ( say in Oct 2009)
Then, in Feb 2010 would I be able to get back to H1 again with the same or different employer? without needing to wait for Apr 2010 quota to open?
3) Also, when a H1b is denied does it mean that the person has to wait to get into another cap? or
can they still apply for H1b year round as they are already counted in Cap sometime before?
more...
house And Keira Knightley
Macaca
10-14 09:54 AM
Nativism In the House: A Report on the House Immigration Reform Caucus (http://www.buildingdemocracy.org/Nativism_In_the_House/A_Report_on_the_HIRC/Nativism_In_the_House%3A_A_Report_on_the_House_Imm igration_Reform_Caucus_200710091083/), 09 October 2007
New Report Analyzes the Immigration Reform Caucus' Role in Derailing True Immigration Reform (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marisa-trevi/new-report-analyzes-the-i_b_68035.html) By Marisa Trevi�o, October 11, 2007
New Report Analyzes the Immigration Reform Caucus' Role in Derailing True Immigration Reform (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marisa-trevi/new-report-analyzes-the-i_b_68035.html) By Marisa Trevi�o, October 11, 2007
tattoo keira knightley natalie
gokhale35
03-01 11:13 AM
Hello,
I applied AOS in July 07 and was waiting for my and spouse FP till now. Last week I received FP notice for my spouse but her middle name on FP notice is spelled wrong. But her I-485 receipts and EAD are spelled correctly. What do I do ? Do I need to contact them and have it corrected before she appears for the FP appointment. Her FP appointment is next week so there is not much time left. I was thinking , that when she appears for FP appointment to let them know about the spelling mistake.
Members, please share any similar experiences.
My Info:
I-485 applied in July 15 07
PD: May 2006, EB2
FP : still waiting for mine, received my spouse's
center: TSC
I applied AOS in July 07 and was waiting for my and spouse FP till now. Last week I received FP notice for my spouse but her middle name on FP notice is spelled wrong. But her I-485 receipts and EAD are spelled correctly. What do I do ? Do I need to contact them and have it corrected before she appears for the FP appointment. Her FP appointment is next week so there is not much time left. I was thinking , that when she appears for FP appointment to let them know about the spelling mistake.
Members, please share any similar experiences.
My Info:
I-485 applied in July 15 07
PD: May 2006, EB2
FP : still waiting for mine, received my spouse's
center: TSC
more...
pictures Nevertheless, Keira Knightley
TkNeo
01-24 11:04 PM
I have I-140 approved and waiting for PD to become current. Wife , however, is from ROW country and i am looking to applying I-485 for both of us using Cross Chargeability.
Is Cross Chargeability guaranteed to work or do USCIS employees have a discretion if they approve it or not ?
After researching a lot it seems like lot of people have had a hard time in being successful in conveying their CC eligibility to USCIS. What is the difficulty in conveying CC eligibility to USCIS? It seems like people mentioned about their CC in a cover letter to their I-485 but USCIS would miss reading or understanding this information. What is the secret to successfully conveying CC eligibility to USCIS ?
Thanks in advance!
TK
Is Cross Chargeability guaranteed to work or do USCIS employees have a discretion if they approve it or not ?
After researching a lot it seems like lot of people have had a hard time in being successful in conveying their CC eligibility to USCIS. What is the difficulty in conveying CC eligibility to USCIS? It seems like people mentioned about their CC in a cover letter to their I-485 but USCIS would miss reading or understanding this information. What is the secret to successfully conveying CC eligibility to USCIS ?
Thanks in advance!
TK
dresses Keira Knightley turned up at
dbonneau
07-29 03:45 PM
Hello,
I would like to prepare for the worst scenario that might happen in near future since I only got about two months of H1B
I didn't even know what " RFE" was until I recently received it. From my first H1B app to LC, things have gone so smoothly.. but now I am starting to realize that this could be jeopardize my whole career in U.S if I don't get approved from I140.
When I started my PERM processing last year,my lawyer made sound so easy about getting a GC that the paralegal who handles my case has never told me anything about" if things goes wrong",which I am afraid that it might be happen soon...
If I get denied from I140, Is there a way to extend my H1B ? or any other way to keep my job in U.S legally ? Could anyone give me some advice ?
my status:
Apr 2009 Priority Date EB2
May 2010 I140 EB2 filed
May 2010 I1485 filed
July 2010 I140 RFE
H1B 6th year (exp. OCT1 2010)
I would like to prepare for the worst scenario that might happen in near future since I only got about two months of H1B
I didn't even know what " RFE" was until I recently received it. From my first H1B app to LC, things have gone so smoothly.. but now I am starting to realize that this could be jeopardize my whole career in U.S if I don't get approved from I140.
When I started my PERM processing last year,my lawyer made sound so easy about getting a GC that the paralegal who handles my case has never told me anything about" if things goes wrong",which I am afraid that it might be happen soon...
If I get denied from I140, Is there a way to extend my H1B ? or any other way to keep my job in U.S legally ? Could anyone give me some advice ?
my status:
Apr 2009 Priority Date EB2
May 2010 I140 EB2 filed
May 2010 I1485 filed
July 2010 I140 RFE
H1B 6th year (exp. OCT1 2010)
more...
makeup Keira Knightley Hair - Zimbio
jerez_z
11-04 05:59 PM
thanks Mith :)
girlfriend tattoo Keira Knightley New
lost
04-28 02:10 PM
What is the difference been EB2 Vs EB2 NIW and when does one qualify for NIW
hairstyles Keira Knightley Actress Keira
vellabati
07-20 10:29 AM
A
sxk
10-29 02:31 AM
I will make sure I check my mail at least every other day.
sixburgh
01-15 07:49 AM
Anyone?
No comments:
Post a Comment